Genetics and Intelligence

Here are studies that were carried out by examining the correlation of I.Q.s between identical twins (monozygotic) reared apart. The studies were carried out by Newman 1937, Shields 1962, Juel-Nielson 1980, Bouchard 1990, and Pederson 2002 they found an average of 0.75 for heritability of intelligence as calculated by Bouchard (1993) (Richard Lynn, 2006) This demonstrates that genetics play a 75% role in intelligence of identical twins reared apart. The correlation between I.Q.s of unrelated children adopted and reared in the same families as adults is only 0.04. (Bouchard 1993) Environmentalist argue that differences in I.Q are caused by differences in their home environments, if this were true these children that aren't related raised in the same homes wouldn't have a correlation in I.Q.'s of only .04. This shows their environment has very little effect on intelligence.

This demonstrates with scientific proof that genetics play a strong role in intelligence(75%).

You frequently hear complaints about the price of gas, the number of people in poverty, the amount of Americans in prison, and all kinds of other problems worldwide. You hear politicians and citizens pointing out problems, but you don't ever hear them state the causes. If you fix the cause of a problem, the problem is no longer existent. Also notice there are many democracies that are impoverished, this shows that just because a country is a democracy, doesn't mean it will succeed.

Richard Lynn found that the correlation between two measures of national I.Q is 0.94 showing that I.Q measures, give highly consistent results and have high reliability. If a test is accurate it should give close to the same results for the same countries consistently. This is known as the reliability coefficient, and is used to measure the accuracy of test. (Richard Lynn, 2006 p.62)

The correlation between national I.Q.s and the scores on educational attainment for different countries is 0.83 for mathematics and 0.89 for science scores. This was calculated by correlating the scores from the International Assessment of Educational Progress and national I.Q. Scores. This shows that I.Q test accurately display intelligence, if this wasn't true countries with high I.Q.s wouldn't be the ones with high test scores and countries with low I.Q.s wouldn't be the ones with low test scores, as seen above. (Richard Lynn, 2006 p.66)


The list above is just a brief one, there are many more examples. This list displays inconsistencies in environmentalist theories that I.Q test are biased against third world countries that don't speak English.


The correlation between national I.Q and PPP GNI per capita 2003 for 113 countries (gross national income per person) is 0.772. Life expectancy (which demonstrates a countries health) for 113 countries and national I.Q correlate at 0.735. ( Richard Lynn, 2006 p.137) This scientifically shows that countries with more intelligent people have higher incomes and better health. Poor countries are not able acquire wealth because they have low intelligence. This shows that if you raise a countries I.Q. That you will also improve its standard of living. People that are dissatisfied with politics in their country or the standard of living should look into Eugenics.

This demonstrates that the best way to improve the quality life of a nation, is to improve its I.Q. Nations of low I.Q make use of little technology, have low gross national income, and die young. The more people of low I.Q out reproduce people of high I.Q in the United States the larger poverty, crime, and health problems will become. This is why its important to vote against immigration from Mexico, vote against welfare for people that could be working, and vote in favor of humanitarian eugenics.

The available evidence is that those of higher IQ (who typically have genes that make for higher IQs) are having smaller families than those of lower IQ's (Herrenstein & Murray, 1994; Lynn, 1996; Miller, 1997a).

Just as an example of a possible setup could be. You can not have kids if you are on welfare, if you do not make enough money to feed children, been in prison more than once, have a genetically inherited disease, been in a psychiatric hospital more than once, have a history of child abuse, or dropped out of high school. People who are engineers, rocket scientist, physicist, doctors, and ect. get tax cuts if they have kids. Other programs to encourage the highly intelligent to reproduce could be employed.

Source wikipedia, Charles Murray's, and Richard Herrnstein's book the Bell Curve

The above diagram proves that using the restrictions I listed or other ones for having kids, would in fact improve the average I.Q of a nation and there is a correlation between class and I.Q.. It also demonstrates that people of low I.Q are a strain on the economy, they fill the prisons, are welfare recipients, and are reproducing the fastest.

The median correlation between I.Q and educational attainment is 0.62, drawn from 16 studies consisting of over 35,000 samples. (Richard Lynn 2006 p.43) Studies include Deary, 2004, Thienpont & Verleye, 2003 and many more.



The correlation between parental socioeconomic status and their children's educational attainment obtained from a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies is only 0.22. (white, 1982) (Richard Lynn, 2006 p.44)

This shows that an individuals I.Q plays a larger role in education attainment than their parents wealth. Which indicates encouraging people of college backgrounds to have kids would improve the gene pool, and the idea of the poor not being able to get into college on a large scale is a liberal myth.

The median heritability of socioeconomic status for related men from seven studies is 0.41, and the heritability of socioeconomic status for 255 pairs of biologically unrelated adopted children reared by the same adoptive parents was only 0.133 at the age of 39. This shows that the children that are related have a much stronger correlation then the ones unrelated even if raised in the same home and genetics play a large part in socioeconomic status. (Richard Lynn, 2006 p. 235) Some of these studies include Teasdale and Owen (1984), and Tambs et al., 1989.

This further advances the thesis that preventing the poor from reproducing could reduce poverty and reduce human suffering.

People say its inhumane to take away persons right to have kids. Kids are viewed as a burden, and people could still live a fulfilling life without having kids. If they are advancing this humanitarian perspective then what do they have to say about this. Eugenics based on class and achievement would reduce the number of kids born with diseases, raised in poverty and hunger, and to abusive parents or criminals.

Eugenicist include geniuses Alexander graham bell, Woodrow Wilson, James Watson founder of the D.N.A. structure, and William Shockley inventor of the transistor. Eugenics doesn't incorporate violence, you could simply have laws instructing certain people not to have kids. Why should someone who doesn't have enough money to feed kids, be having kids?

People try and use the slippery slope argument this is not valid. The only country that abused Eugenics was Nazi Germany. Eugenics was carried out in Australia, Norway, France, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, China, Switzerland, Canada, United States, Singapore, and Sweden. These countries didn't murder people or hurt anyone. This shows Eugenics simply means “good breeding” in Latin and the majority of countries that practiced it did not use violence or murder. There has been socialist countries and democracies that commit mass executions, does this mean socialism and democracies should not be practiced anywhere?. Hitler was a vegetarian, does that make all vegetarians bad? The catholic church leadership has burned people at the stake, does that make all catholics killers?

What is controlling the gene pool, where has natural selection gone? Where is our society headed when the smart wealthy reproduce slowly and few, and pay for the dull feeble minded welfares recipients large family.

People think when the government gets this power it would abuse evil Eugenics. We the Americans elect the politicians in the end its up to us. The politicians make the laws but we pick them, a fanatical leader would not get elected, this demonstrates Eugenics would be carried out in a humanitarian manner.

__________________
I stand for Eugenics

Ron Paul for president!

You posted this exact text at Liberty News Forum. Did you write this?

__________________
THE RAPTURE IS NOT AN EXIT STRATEGY

yeah I did write it

__________________
I stand for Eugenics

Ron Paul for president!

Eugenics got a bad name do to the twisting of it by the Nazis to race.

Prior to that it was a widely studied/accepted field of science.